Case 2600678/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Smith v Headlines Creative Hair — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600678/2020
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss B Smith brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Headlines Creative Hair. Employment Judge Hutchinson recorded that the complaint was struck out at the preliminary stage. The judgment states that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment adds that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment says she was given an opportunity to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.